The appellate court found that unclear property descriptions invalidate ownership claims in declaratory suits, emphasizing the necessity for precise identification and evidence in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

This Appeal Suit is preferred by the aggrieved defendant in the suit filed for declaration in respect of the A schedule property, relief of recovery of possession in respect of the B schedule property and for permanent injunction.

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is as follows:

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned properties pursuant to the settlement deed dated 23.07.2009 executed by the grand mother of the plaintiff Krishnaveni Ammal. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property absolutely without any let or hindrance. The defendant, who is the resident of the western side of the schedule mentioned property arbitrarily and illegally attempted to trespass into the A schedule property on 25.05.2013 in order to annexe the suit property with his property. His illegal attempt was resisted with the help of the village elders, however, the defendant being politically powerful, he has proclaimed to grab the property at any cost. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction was sought initially. Later the plaint was amended and additional relief of declaration of title also prayed in respect of A schedule property.

3. The defendant resisted the suit as a vexatious litigation filed with an intention to harass the neighbour. The settlement deed dated 23.07.2009 relied by the plaintiff without measurement, location and identity was questioned as a fraudulent deed. No title is conferred on the plaintiff over the A schedule property from the said deed to seek declaration of title and injunction. The allegation of attempt to trespass into the land of the plaintiff is also denied.

4. According the defendants, the plaintiff's predecessors came to the suit village only in the year 1998, whereas the defendant and his elders are in possession of the jari side from the year 1985 onwards. The house site of the plaintiff and the house site of the defendant is separated by a 8 feet wall, which is presently dilapidated due to effex of time. On the west of the said wall, the defendant's cattle shed with 4 pegs to tie the cattles is located, a bathroom and toilet is constructed with washing stone touching the north- south wall of the plaintiff and the same is in use for more than twelve years. A bore well, six feet west of the compound wall is in existence. While so, near the compound wall on the southern end touching the Bajanai Koil Street, the defendant has put up a new bathroom and toilet. The plaintiff has put up compound wall along the Bajanai Koil Street and the said compound wall takes a bend in which there is 'Pathirippu' and there is no compound wall for about 20 feet. By suppressing the physical feature on the line, the plaintiff had filed the suit without cause of action.

5. In the additional written statement filed by the defendant, he has contended that the amendment to the plaint by including the relief of declaration, after obtaining interim injunction with false averments is a mischievous and fraudulent attempt by the plaintiff. The bore well, bathroom and toilet of the defendant was constructed 18 years ago. The plaintiff aware of the same and had not protested at any point of time. The suit property is a Grama Natham and the patta issued by the Revenue department about 27 years ago comprising the land in old Survey No.288/6 (New Survey No.592/17), after due enquiry and verification of the possession. Issuance of patta not challenged by the plaintiff, which would prove that the B schedule property is enjoyed by the defendant for a long ti